The Assassinated Lawyer and Bombay (Not Mumbai)

Hansal Mehta at the premiere of “Shahid” during the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival, Canada, Sept. 9.

The hard-hitting biopic “Shahid” by director Hansal Mehta opened the first Dharamshala International Film festival on Nov. 1 after a celebrated debut at the Toronto Film Festival earlier this year.

The gritty 123-minute movie documents the life of Shahid Azmi, a Muslim lawyer and social activist who was assassinated February 2010 at the age of 32. Mr. Azmi worked as a defense attorney for ostensibly wrongly-accused or jailed Muslims under the anti-terrorist bill known as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1985.

Advertisement

The film is an exhaustive account of Mr. Azmi’s life, citing the 1992-93 riots between Hindus and Muslims as a trigger for his own experimentation with becoming a “jihadi” in Kashmir. Disillusioned by the brainwashing dogma of his trainers, Mr. Azmi finds his way back to Mumbai where he is arrested and sent to Delhi’s Tihar jail under the TADA act. During his incarceration, the young man gains a graduate degree in journalism. He goes on to train as a lawyer after his release in 2001, establishing a practice in Kurla, Mumbai. Taking on cases for little or no money, Mr. Azmi becomes a tireless figurehead for the unjustly accused from his religious community at the cost of his own personal safety, gaining the attention of Mumbai’s underworld.

“Shahid” feels part documentary and part love story. It is a compelling tale about a rare crusader for justice in a city with a history of communal tension.

The movie’s director Hansal Mehta spoke with The Wall Street Journal’s India Real Time about the making of “Shahid.” Edited excerpts:

WSJ: How did you decide on Shahid Azmi as a subject for your latest film?

Hansal Mehta: I was really disappointed after making my last film, “Woodstock Villa.” I felt like I’d let myself down with films I’ve made in the past because then I really had no story to tell. So I left Bombay for three years. I kept exploring ideas but never found one. When I read the headlines and articles about Shahid I suddenly felt I had a story that was important. The newspapers are full of… disturbing articles: acid in people’s faces, crimes of passion, but nothing that provokes you into thought or action. As a filmmaker you look for a story to express your concerns.

WSJ: How did Anurag Kashyap become involved (as producer)?

Mr. Mehta: Anurag is an old friend and in fact he started his career as a writer on my first film “Jayate” (1997). I approached Sunil Bohra, who comes from a traditional filmmaking family that has been making films for 50 years. When Sunil heard what I was proposing he jumped at the story and said, ‘This is it! We have to make this.’ And he called Anurag who said this was the right time to make a film with me. He saw that I was upset and said that my anger was back after some of my other films.

WSJ: What are your thoughts on communal tensions in Mumbai?

Mr. Mehta: I was born and brought up in Bombay. Not Mumbai, Bombay! I went out on an assignment for two-and-a-half years to Australia and the Fiji islands and when I returned, the 1993 riots had just finished. Bombay had come back to normalcy. But it was not the Bombay I left behind. It was no longer Bombay, but Mumbai. The change of name is very symbolic. ‘Mumbai’ represents a polarized city compared to the very harmonious, peaceful city of people on the move, irrespective of color or religion. We have been forced to live in a divided world. The politicians are making caste and religious differences because of the economic divide.

It took 37 days to shoot the film but that was spread over a period of nine months because we were working with actual locations. We shot in trains, houses, Himachal for the Kashmir scenes, but I received no tension while shooting in these areas and that’s why I love Bombay. Because despite all these tensions that people talk about, the common man wants peace – for his life to go on normally. When I went to these places, people encouraged me to make this film. They said, ‘Make a good film. Shahid bhai was such a great man.’ It was amazing.

WSJ: Are you at any personal risk for telling the story of a man who was assassinated?

Mr. Mehta: I was in no danger during the making of this film. Danger only applies to those who have fear. I made this film fearlessly. I don’t care if anyone is offended. If somebody wants to mess with me, let him do it. I’ve not received any threats so far. I’ve had a few soft sort of threats where people called and said that I’d made a mistake and I shouldn’t have made this film. My response to them bore expletives.

WSJ: How accurate is the film in retelling the events in Azmi’s life?

Mr. Mehta: The broad strokes of the film are accurate. A journalist interviewed Shahid’s brother and he says that the film is 95% accurate. I was dealing with a man who was not alive – it was his life, so I had to tread carefully because you don’t know what happened behind closed doors. Hence I had to dramatize certain aspects of his life and relationships, but overall I’ve worked on facts that have been given to me or researched. This is the perceived truth of his life.

WSJ: In your eyes, what did Shahid Azmi stand for?

Mr. Mehta: For me, he stands for the power of the common man; the power of change in us. I went for a press conference and someone asked me what I thought constituted a good neta (politician). I said I don’t know what constitutes a good neta but I know what constitutes a good nagrik(citizen). Rather than asking for everything from our leaders and relying on them to bring about change, I think the change has to start from us. And I think we can rise above our circumstances and be the change.

WSJ: Will the length of the film at 123 minutes, and with no songs, deter audiences?

Mr. Mehta: Not at all. The litmus test for me was showing the film at the Mumbai International Film Festival in February this year. My Bombay audience was going to watch the film. At my second screening in Versova, which bears a hardcore cinema-going audience, the theater was jam packed. The crowd responded to every nuance and when it ended, the ovation went on till the end of the credits, after which people started whistling. That was the kind of reception it got so if a film like this is given a chance, audiences are ready to receive it.

WSJ: How much did the film cost to make and when will it see a release?

Mr. Mehta: The production cost of the film was less than $250,000, but the marketing budget can be as much as four times the production budget. That is the danger right now to independent films being made in India. But it’s a good time for independent cinema because audiences are maturing a bit; the markets are slightly more open to them. The film will tour through a number of festivals in December and January and will hit at least three major festivals, which unfortunately I can’t disclose yet. The film will see a release in India and hopefully worldwide at the end of January or beginning February 2013.

Govind Dhar is the former executive editor of Robb Report India and has been writing on travel, luxury, the arts and culture for the past 10 years.

About India Real Time

India Real Time offers analysis and insights into the broad range of developments in business, markets, the economy, politics, culture, sports, and entertainment that take place every single day in the world’s largest democracy. Regular posts from Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires reporters around the country provide a unique take on the main stories in the news, shed light on what else mattered and why, and give global readers a snapshot of what Indians have been talking about all week. You can contact the editors at indiarealtime(at)wsj(dot)com.